Ferpozzi, Kreimer-Open Science

CONTEXTUALIZING OPENNESS
312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 1 20/09/2019 16:07:07

The University of Ottawa Press (UOP) is proud to be the oldest of the francophone university presses
in Canada and the only bilingual university publisher in North America. Since 1936, UOP has been
“enriching intellectual and cultural discourse” by producing peer-reviewed and award-winning
books in the humanities and social sciences, in French or in English.
Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Title: Contextualizing openness : situating open science / edited by Leslie Chan; co-edited by
Angela Okune, Becky Hillyer, Denisse Albornoz and Alejandro Posada. Names: Leslie Chan,
1959- editor.
Description: Series statement: Perspectives on open access | Includes bibliographical references.
Identiﬁers: Canadiana (print) 20190104767 | Canadiana (ebook) 20190104856 |
ISBN 9780776626666 (softcover) | ISBN 9780776626673 (PDF) | ISBN 9780776626680 (EPUB) |
ISBN 9780776626697 (Kindle)
Subjects: LCSH: Communication in science—Developing countries.
Classiﬁcation: LCC Q225 .C66 2019 | DDC 501/.4—dc23
Legal Deposit: Third Quarter 2019

Library and Archives Canada
© Leslie Chan, Angela Okune, Rebecca Hillyer, Denisse Albornoz, and
Alejandro Posada, 2019. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Printed and bound in Canada
Copy editing NordCompo

Proofreading Heather Lang
Typesetting NordCompo
Cover design Édiscript enr.
Cover image Shutterstock
A co-publication with
International Development Research Centre
PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, K1G 3H9, Canada
www.idrc.ca / info@idrc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55250-611-0 (IDRC e-book)
The research presented in this publication was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International
Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. The views expressed herein do not necessarily
represent those of IDRC or its Board of Governors
The University of Ottawa Press gratefully acknowledges the support extended to its publishing list
by Canadian Heritage through the Canada Book Fund, by the Canada Council for the Arts, by the
Ontario Arts Council, by the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences through the Awards
to Scholarly Publications Program, and by the University of Ottawa.

CONTEXTUALIZING OPENNESS
Situating Open Science
E D I T E D BY
Leslie Chan, Angela Okune, Rebecca Hillyer,

Denisse Albornoz, and Alejandro Posada
University of Ottawa Press
International Development Research Centre

Ottawa • Amman • Montevideo • Nairobi • New Delhi
2019

Table of Contents
Preface............................................................................................................ 1
By Tony Horava
Introduction
� Situating Openness: Whose Open Science?.................................. 5
� Principles for an Inclusive Open Science: .
The OCSDNet Manifesto................................................................ 23
Section 1: Defining Open Science in Development

Introduction to the Section by Apiwat Ratanawaraha....................... 53
� Open Science Hardware (OSH) for Development: .
Transnational Networks and Local Tinkering .
in Southeast Asia.............................................................................. 59
� On Openness and Motivation: .
Insights from a Pilot Project in Latin America........................... 87
� Contextualizing Openness: A Case Study .
in Water Quality Testing in Lebanon......................................... 107
Section 2: Governing Open Science

Introduction to the Section by Cameron Neylon.............................. 125
� Brazil’s Virtual Herbarium, an Infrastructure .
for Open Science............................................................................ 133
� Collaborative Development of an Open Knowledge .
Broker for Disaster Recovery Planning...................................... 147
� Harmonization of Open Science and Commercialization .
in Research Partnerships in Kenya  ........................................... 167
Section 3: Negotiating Open Science

Introduction to the Section by Hebe Vessuri..................................... 193
� Co-production of Knowledge, Degrees of Openness, .
and Utility of Science in Non-hegemonic Countries............... 201
�� Tensions Related to Openness .
in Researching Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge .
Systems and Intellectual Property Rights.................................. 223
�� Negotiating Openness in Science Projects: .
Case Studies from Argentina....................................................... 237

vi CONTEXTUALIZING OPENNESS
Section 4: Open Science for Social Transformation

Introduction to the Section by Halla Thorsteinsdóttir...................... 261
�� Experimenting with Openness as a Seed for .
Social Transformation: Linking Environmental .
Education and Citizen Science in Remote .
Mountain Villages of Kyrgyzstan............................................... 267
�� Open Science and Social Change: .
A Case Study in Brazil.................................................................. 291
�� Toward African and Haitian Universities .
in Service of Sustainable Local Development: .
The Contribution of Fair Open Science..................................... 311

CHAPTER 9
Co-production of Knowledge,
Degrees of Openness, and Utility
of Science in Non-hegemonic Countries
Hugo Ferpozzi, Juan Layna, Emiliano Martín Valdez,.

Leandro Rodríguez Medina, and Pablo Kreimer
Abstract
Collaboration in scientific knowledge production has been histori-
cally dominated and driven by hegemonic (Northern) countries, while
non-hegemonic countries tend to take on secondary roles. The growing
discourse on Open Science provides the opportunity to look critically at
the roles and outcomes of collaborative knowledge creation. Drawing
on four diverse case studies throughout Latin America, this project has
sought to assess the ways that diverse actors, processes, and sectors
converge to collaborate (willingly or not) on resolving social issues.
Using Open Science as a theoretical framework, the chapter concludes
with a summary of how different “types” of challenges may be more
or less amenable to the collaborative practices of Open Science.
Introduction
The general orientation of this chapter is to investigate under what con-
ditions scientific knowledge, produced in varied regimes of openness
in different contexts and with the participation of diverse actors, can be
utilized to address, and perhaps even resolve, social problems. With that
aim, we use Open Science as a theoretical framework that, within the
social studies of science, mobilizes different concepts which are normally
considered separately, and that enable us to take some steps toward

202 CONTEXTUALIZING OPENNESS
constructing a more comprehensive and integral approach to openness.

These concepts have been operationalized in the study of four empirical
cases that relate to distinct configurations of knowledge, actors, contexts,
institutions, and regimes of openness. The case studies are:
1. national and international networks dedicated to Chagas dis-

ease research;
2. disputes about the environmental contamination of a mine in
the Andes mountain range;
3. strategies for the detection and conservation of jaguars in the
tropical forests of northeastern Argentina; and
4. the production of social science knowledge on North-South
migrations in Mexico.
The selection of these cases was made on the basis of three criteria.
The first criterion focused on the types of knowledge and disciplines
involved, which are very different in each of the four cases: basic knowl-
edge in Chagas disease research and applied knowledge in the cases
of wildlife preservation, both within the life sciences. The case of mi-
gration studies, on the other hand, belongs to social sciences; and last,
the case of mining disputes integrates all of the former within a space
of political controversy. Second, these cases explore how heterogeneous
stakeholders intervene in the application of knowledge by examining
different processes of knowledge co-production geared toward address-
ing public problems. Third, the cases were also selected on the basis of
feasibility and access to data sources. The diversity of knowledge and
types of stakeholders discussed might help in clarifying the conceptual
tools proposed to understand openness and uses of knowledge.
Taking into account the emergent elements of these four case
studies, toward the end of this chapter we suggest a preliminary
typology with which to systematize the most significant dimensions
in the regimes of knowledge openness and the possibility of using
knowledge to address social needs in non-hegemonic contexts.
We focus on three central problems crossing the processes of
production and use of scientific knowledge in non-hegemonic contexts
(Losego and Arvanitis 2008).
Firstly, we consider the historical problems facing Latin Ameri-
can societies in relation to putting locally produced scientific knowl-
edge to effective use. Indeed, these difficulties were identified in the
1960s, and various analyses and policy alternatives have been put

Co-production of Knowledge, Degrees of Openness 203
forward. Thus, Sábato and Botana (1969) proposed to analyze the

relationships between the production and use of knowledge with the
well-known formulation of a triangle of relations with scientific-tech-
nological infrastructure, government, and the productive sector at each
vertex. It was noted that, while the links between academia, business,
and the government were fluid, their reciprocal relationships were
very weak or non-existent, so that policy efforts should be oriented
toward designing instruments to promote stronger links.
From the 1980s onward, several mechanisms were implemented
to stimulate “university-productive sector” relations (Sutz 1994; Aro-
cena and Sutz 2001), what have been described as “linking” policies.
Over the following decades, while these relationships were formulated
in similar terms, they were also connected to the idea of a “triple
helix,” in which the axes are the same as the triangle presented by
Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000). Similar considerations were posed
in terms of a “national system of innovation,” whose formulation is
due to the well-known book edited by Lundvall in 1992.
These ideas were adopted rather uncritically by several stud-
ies in Latin America and other developing regions, and, above all,
by policy makers (IADB 2001; STI Law 25.467 in Argentina, etc.).
The common problem in all these approaches was their uncritical
approach toward the modes of knowledge production: science is taken
as a “commodity” or object to be “transferred” (generally neutral in
content), and the goal was to locate the main problem in finding better
mechanisms for its transfer from one context to another.
We have contested these perspectives for several years (Kreimer 2003;
Kreimer 2014), arguing that the social use of knowledge is not something
that is found “at the end of an assembly line,” as a recreation of a lin-
ear model, but that it should rather be understood as a more complex
process in which the utility of knowledge informs the very processes
of scientific research. We have drawn the conclusion that a hallmark of
developing countries is precisely the difficulty of being able to effectively
use locally produced knowledge, whether to address social-environmen-
tal problems or to contribute to industrial and social development. We
identified this process as AKNA: Applicable Knowledge Not Applied
(Kreimer and Thomas 2005).
Our research focuses on a second problem: the relatively peripheral
position of Latin American countries. It has been evident that peripheral
regions faced serious obstacles to their scientific development in rela-
tion to the universalization of science. As Losego and Arvanitis (2008)

point out, “Non-hegemonic countries are dominated in the international

division of scientific work” (343). This idea is already present in the
concept of peripheral science: scientists do participate in international
collaborations, but are frequently undertaking “secondary” functions
or subordinate work in programs elaborated in hegemonic countries
(Díaz, Texera, and Vessuri 1983; Kreimer 2014).
In this sense, two aspects converge to hinder the use of knowledge
in developing countries: the role of the scientific elites and the prevailing
evaluation systems that, with a few exceptions, tend to prioritize the pub-
lication of articles in high-impact international journals, whose agendas
are markedly dominated by the issues and methods which interest the
great powers. In turn, these elites are increasingly co-opted to work on
projects with international cooperation in which they undertake relevant
activities that nonetheless have a high technical content and little leeway
to develop theoretical concepts. In this way, cognitive control is exercised
by hegemonic groups and research centres on a process dominated by a
sharp division of labour and a logic of subordinated integration (Kreimer
and Levin 2013). In addition, although in “North-South” international
collaborations it is possible to industrialize the knowledge generated
collectively, the companies located in the hegemonic countries are usually
responsible for doing it.
A third issue relates to the modes of “openness” or “closure” of
the processes of scientific research. The polysemic concept of Open
Science functions as a wide umbrella. In this sense, it is worth re-
visiting the classification, including the five schools of Open Science
advanced by Fecher and Friesike (2014), who consider:
(1) the infrastructure school, concerned with the technological

architecture; (2) the public school, concerned with the accessibility
of knowledge creation; (3) the measurement school, concerned with
alternative impact measurement; (4) the democratic school, concerned
with access to knowledge; and (5) the pragmatic school, concerned
with collaborative research.
Each of these approaches places emphasis on different relational

aspects, but we wish to concentrate particularly on the “pragmatic”
school (although the label is not entirely convincing), and also on the
“public” school of Open Science, even though we have to refer to the
infrastructure school as well (concerned with the material platforms
that support knowledge).

Our sociological approach is concerned with the question about

the actors who participate in the processes of production and use of
scientific knowledge, linked to the idea of co-production proposed
several years ago by Jasanoff (2004), who suggests that:
Knowledge and its material embodiments are at once products of

social work and constitutive of forms of social life; society cannot
function without knowledge any more than knowledge can exist
without appropriate social supports. Scientific knowledge, in par-
ticular, is not a transcendent mirror of reality. It both embeds and
is embedded in social practices, identities, norms, conventions,
discourses, instruments and institutions… .(3–4).
We add to this idea of co-production a central concern that not only is

knowledge “co-produced” but its social uses are actually inscribed in
the processes of production themselves, in which the role of different
actors is crucial. This approach enables us to go beyond formal open-
ness and to focus on the relationship between use of knowledge and
public issues in non-hegemonic contexts. We consider the configura-
tion of public issues as both social and cognitive problems. A given
“scientific” definition of a problem puts forward certain specific views
and solutions as “possible” and excludes others. The frameworks set
by scientific knowledge, far from being universal, establish specific
links between a given problem and the different actors who mobilize
it or are excluded from it.
From this perspective, even open processes of knowledge pro-
duction cannot ensure that knowledge will be a priori oriented toward
satisfying social needs. Indeed, the very definition of the “scientific
problem” plays a crucial role in the public arena, as it sets the different
instances through which knowledge is transformed, used, and imple-
mented. In turn, this perspective allows a deeper understanding of the
social and cognitive barriers frequently dismissed by other approaches
to Open Science. Apart from the material and formal requirements, we
propose that there are other requirements related to tacit knowledge
and to social and political skills that stand in the way of effectively
using openly accessible knowledge. Cognitive barriers, then, entail
sophisticated knowledge or technical requirements that cannot be
fulfilled by all the concerned stakeholders. However, the boundary
between strictly cognitive and other kinds of barriers is rarely clear-
cut, as the production and use of scientific knowledge must often

be accompanied by legal, political, or interactional knowledge about

how its potential users or audiences can be addressed or enrolled.
In this way, we explore to what extent the fact that diverse actors
participate, even in a controversial way, in the material and symbolic
processes of production of cognitive objects has an influence on the
uses of knowledge. From this perspective, processes with greater col-
laboration in the production of knowledge do not imply an a priori
determination of its effective use oriented toward satisfying social
needs. The three perspectives presented here should be considered
together in order to furnish us with an integral image of the different
dimensions related to the degrees of openness of knowledge, their
actual or potential uses, and the broadest contexts in which these
processes take place in a globalized world.
Empirical Case 1: Chagas Disease Research

and its Networks of Knowledge Production
Chagas disease is endemic in Latin America, affecting around ten
million individuals. As a consequence of recent migratory processes,
the disease has also spread to non-endemic regions, although it has
only recently become an actual public health issue (i.e., Hotez et al.
2013). Known as American Trypanosomiasis, it is mainly transmitted
through the bite of insect vectors called “kissing bugs” or “vinchucas.”
These bugs inhabit rural households across the Americas and intro-
duce the Trypanosomacruzi (the parasite that causes the disease) into the
host organism after feeding on their blood. During the chronic phase
ensuing infection, the disease causes cardiac and gastroenterological
disorders. In view of its epidemiological patterns and the lack of an
effective treatment for it, the World Health Organization (WHO) has
classified Chagas in the group of seventeen neglected tropical diseases
(WHO 2012).
The advances in biological research into T. cruzi in the 1970s
reinforced local and international scientific interest in the disease,
drawing the attention of global health organizations and research cen-
tres such as the WHO’s Special Programme for Research and Training
in Tropical Diseases. In the 1990s, the causing organism was part of
the T. cruzi Genome Project (TcGP), an internationally collaborative
initiative aimed at sequencing its genome, which spanned more than
a decade. Doctors Without Borders and the Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation are other international institutions interested in research

into the disease and its potential eradication.
Even with sustained support for biomedical research and its
focus on the potential development of therapeutic applications, so
far there is no effective treatment for Chagas disease: the only drug
currently used, whose effectiveness is still limited, was developed fifty
years ago by Roche. Hope for the development of suitable drugs was
placed—similarly to the Human Genome Project—in the TcGP and
the genome databases developed afterward. One of the most striking
examples is TDR Targets, an open genomics resource oriented toward
prioritizing possible targets to attack the parasite using chemical com-
pounds (Agüero et al. 2008; Magarinos et al. 2012; WHO 2007). Due to
its Open Access resources and its potential for medical applications,
we conjectured that the findings of the research into Chagas disease
could be subjected to processes of cognitive exploitation. These pro-
cesses imply the appropriation of knowledge by private actors without
objective compensation for the producers. In this way, pharmaceutical
firms could potentially take advantage of the research, which is ba-
sically financed by public funds and NGOs, in order to industrialize
knowledge in the form of medical treatments that would otherwise
not be profitable.
On the contrary, the possibility of developing applicable knowl-
edge, sensitive to local needs, does not only depend on the production
of and access to Open Data, but on a group of contextual interactions
between the political and scientific spheres, as well as on the connec-
tions between public health, the affected populations, and the private
companies in charge of the development of treatments. In effect, the
path to implementing the commercialization or distribution of a drug
is slow and difficult; it normally requires dealing with government
offices in different jurisdictions, negotiating the prevailing legislation,
carrying out reliable clinical trials, and, last but not least, making its
delivery viable in economic terms (Masum and Harris 2011; Porrás
et al. 2015).
The inadequacy of the more restricted notions of access and
openness also emerge upon examining the knowledge production
about the disease in the fields of biomedicine and genomics. In re-
cent decades, representatives from these fields became spokespeople
for the issue, and biomedical research was conceived, in itself, as a
“legitimate” strategy for intervening in the problem of Chagas dis-
ease. However, this highly internationalized production of scientific

knowledge makes it difficult for those affected to participate in the

formulation of the problem at stake and the decisions connected to
research (Kreimer 2015; Kreimer and Zabala, 2007). The dynamics of
knowledge production, furthermore, are highly dependent on the in-
stitutional, symbolic, and material support provided by global NGOs
and research centres in developed countries. As the literature has
shown, the interests of this group of global biomedical actors barely
contemplate the particular needs of the local contexts where they act
(Behague et al. 2009; Leys Stepan 2011).
Lastly, the limitations of the classic concepts of access and
openness can also be observed among the researchers and health
professionals themselves. The professionals engaged in patient
care are, in general, detached from the production of knowledge
and decision-making regarding research, and their capacity to ac-
cess resources is significantly less than those in the biomedical field
(e.g., Sosa-Estani 2011).
Empirical Case 2: Socio-technical Dispute Around

the Cyanide Spill in Veladero, Jáchal, San Juan
The Veladero mine in San Juan province extracts and processes gold
and silver by means of “cyanide leaching,” also known as opencast
mining. In September 2015, thanks to a Veladero employee, the news
of a cyanide solution spill into the watercourse, which feeds the rivers
vital for the mine’s neighbouring communities, circulated unofficially
in social networks. Rapidly, several officials from the Ministry of En-
vironment described the event in the media as an “environmental
incident,” thus defining the public problem (Gusfield 1981) that is
at the centre of the dispute analyzed here. In this dispute, the pro-
duction and mobilization of knowledge played an important role in
achieving more mediate objectives. Briefly, the sectors in conflict are,
on the one hand, a block whose most prominent actors are the pro-
vincial executive power and the Barrick company, along with some
media outlets, public and private universities, environmental man-
agement institutions, and business groups related to mining. On the
other hand, there are the “Hands Off Jáchal” Assembly (Asamblea de
Jáchal No Se Toca”—AJNST) from the homonymous city, along with
various organizations engaged in environmental struggles. This last
group demands the immediate closure of the mine.

A significant feature of this conflict is the production of technical

reports done privately in payment for services. This is enabled by a
modality of university-industry collaboration based on the notion of
“transfer” (OECD 1996) as universally useful and, therefore, freely
commercializable knowledge. These studies are characteristically se-
cret, both in their elaboration process and in consumption, which
comes under the absolute authority of the “purchaser.” Another fac-
tor must be added: territorial control of the mine, and, therefore, of
the object of study itself, is located within the exclusive control of the
Barrick corporation.
Regarding how to approach and resolve the public problem,
we find a very particular configuration: a judicial ruling is processed
through private reports and elaborated in highly restricted conditions.
This is of great importance, not only to understand the character of
the dispute and the conditions under which it developed, but also to
more concretely approach the aspect related to the social uses of the
knowledge. Following the spill, several officials from the provincial
executive power issued to the press the findings of various techni-
cal reports commissioned by different institutions (UNSJ, OSSE, and
others), all in one way or another linked to the provincial government.
All these reports indicated normal, or, even in some cases, nonexistent,
levels of cyanide, with no reference to any other type of potentially
toxic substance. The outcome was predictable: the continuation of
Veladero’s operations without major disruptions.
However, the AJNST successfully undertook various procedures
through its political organization, reinforced by mass participation.
Firstly, via a demand made to Jáchal’s mayor, it was able to mobilize
the laboratory at the National University of Cuyo in the province of
Mendoza, especially selected due to its location beyond the sphere of
influence of the San Juan executive power. The findings of the report
made by this laboratory did reveal the presence of cyanide, but mainly
found concentrations of heavy metals that made the water unsuitable
for human consumption.
Then, opening up a new political and cognitive stage in the
dispute, the AJNST drew the national judicial power into the dispute
by means of a petition against Barrick and state officials for com-
mitting infractions affecting interprovincial or national watercourses.
In February 2016, the federal court ordered new studies from other
institutions that produced results agreeing with those the University
of Cuyo published in September/October 2015. Afterward, the federal

court facilitated the intervention of Robert Moran, an internationally

renowned hydrogeological mining expert, chosen and enlisted by
AJNST. Moran was the first representative of AJNST’s interests to
enter Veladero to determine the character of the events surrounding
the spill. Through Moran’s participation, the AJNST managed to gain
access to the actual conditions of knowledge production. This meant
significant progress by AJNST with regard to the capacity to produce
new technical knowledge and also to challenge those elaborated by
sectors connected to the company.
This leads our analysis to various observations. Firstly, the de-
grees of access to knowledge enjoyed by AJNST changed throughout
the different stages of the dispute. Additionally, this was a process
interdependent of the development of AJNST’s socio-cognitive skills,
which included reasoning about diverse technical problems, the abil-
ity to define cognitive criteria, mobilizing university laboratories,
and choosing and enlisting national and international scientific ac-
tors. Lastly, the changes in the extent of access to knowledge and
the recognition that these skills are co-produced (Jasanoff 2004)
and, in turn, along with an equally dynamic and changing aspect,
political-organizational skills become visible in the constitution of
the Assembly itself, as well as in the political alliances forged with
diverse groups.
Empirical Case 3: Collaborative Jaguar Monitoring Networks

The yaguareté (in Guarani), or jaguar, is the largest feline in the Amer-
icas and the third largest feline species in the world. Despite its
conservation status being variable due to its wide-ranging distribution
across the continent, it is considered in Argentina to be under threat
of extinction (Ojeda, Chillo, and Diaz Isenrath 2012). Currently, the
jaguars found in this country are distributed as three subpopulations
in the Yungas (Jujuy), Chaco, and Misiones.
In Misiones, the subpopulation is isolated and has suffered a
reduction in numbers over the last twenty-five years of between two
and 7.5 times its population density (Paviolo et al. 2008). The first
studies of the jaguar in Misiones date back to 1990 and 1995 and were
carried out by Peter Crawshaw (Crawshaw 1995). Crawshaw’s work is
highly valuable, even though his estimates are not precise. His prin-
cipal working method consisted of capturing specimens and fitting
them with collars with a radio-signal transmitter, and triangulating

to establish the source of the signal. This technique is known as radio

telemetry (Di Bitteti 2015).
In 2002, the Argentine Wildlife Fund, a conservation NGO, kick-
started the initiative to advance knowledge about jaguar populations
in the Alto Paraná Atlantic Forest, aware of the need for information
to validate conservation action plans for the jaguar in Misiones. In
this context, the “Yaguareté Project” (2002–2016) is the result of a
collection of scientific research produced by the IBS-Conicet Ecology
and Mammal Conservation Group located in the city of Puerto Iguazú,
Misiones (North East Argentina, close to the Brazilian border). The
initial goal of the project was to assess the conservation status of the
jaguar and puma populations in the Alto Paraná Atlantic Forest region
and to identify their main threats (Di Bitteti 2015).1
The cognitive problem hides a series of practical problems that
are very difficult for a “traditional” scientific organization to solve.
On the one hand, there is a team of three researchers with limited
funds, needing to collect data over an extended time span; on the
other hand, there are two nocturnal animal species that live in low
densities distributed over a hard-to-access geographical area without
communication infrastructure—more than twenty-seven million hect-
ares distributed in three countries (Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay).
To determine the presence of these species, a participatory net-
work of volunteers and collaborators was established with researchers
from the three countries that share the Alto Paraná Atlantic Forest area
(De Angelo et al. 2011). Participants were trained in simple methods
of collecting big cat fecal samples and footprints (indirect methods of
detection), and between 2002 and 2008, more than three hundred vol-
unteers helped obtain 1,633 records of pumas and jaguars. Inscribed
in the field of conservation biology as a discipline, the first thing that
springs to our attention is that “biodiversity” (the main objective of
this field) as a discrete reality composed of an infinite number of liv-
ing beings (including plants, animals, microorganisms, humans, and
their interactions) is unevenly distributed over geographical space.
Starting from the principle outlined by Whitley (2012) in relation
to the structure of knowledge issues influencing the social organiza-
tion of science, it is possible to consider that due to “biodiversity,” as
the main physical reference point of the research questions and the
problems of conservation biology being “distributed” in the same
way as the scientific collaborations, the putting-into-practice of citizen
scientists’ activities as a form of resolving problems of knowledge

that are limited to a local or regional scale is more feasible in these

types of disciplines.
In the last instance, disciplinary attachment is an important ele
ment to take into consideration since it allows us to see the disciplines
as “loci” from which greater degrees of permeability are found (or not)
with regard to the possibility of integrating citizen scientist practices
into their core.
Empirical Case 4: Development of Social Science Knowledge

In Relation to North-South Migrations in Mexico
As a public issue, migration in Mexico illustrates the three problems
of knowledge production in non-hegemonic contexts. First, it shows
that locally produced knowledge is not easily appropriated by locals.
With few exceptions, results do not necessarily inform public policies
(CIDH 2016; Calvillo 2015). Second, Mexican research on migration
is permeated by the features of peripheral science and its tension
between local relevance and international impact (Alatas 2003). Third,
research on migration illustrates the co-production of knowledge by
emphasizing how actors in different parts of the country problema-
tize the phenomenon and, consequently, propose different actions to
implement.
From an academic perspective, Colegio de la Frontera Norte has
played a central role, thanks to its Survey of Migration at Mexico’s
northern and southern borders. Initiated in 1993, it attracted govern-
ment offices such as Consejo Nacional de Población, Secretaría de
Trabajo y Previsión Social, Instituto Nacional de Migración, Secre-
taría de Relaciones Exteriores, Secretaría de Salud Pública, Consejo
Nacional para la Prevención de la Discriminación, and Secretaría de
Desarrollo Social. It is practically impossible to find a project that is
more articulated between academia and the governmental sphere or
one that enjoys such support at the highest bureaucratic level. The
survey is published annually, and its results are available to the public
through its website and databases, in SPSS format, being opened up for
direct consultation by interested parties. After twenty-four years, this
continues to be a priority project, but it has also become an attraction
for foreign graduate students who, as grant-holders, join this institu-
tion with the aim of taking advantage of the accumulated statistical
data. Surprisingly, COLEF’s survey is not formally associated with
migrant non-governmental organizations. However, academics and

students working on it have close contacts with these organizations

since the identification of the “right” places to survey is knowledge
accumulated by NGOs because of their presence in the field. In this
context, it is evident that while the institution and its academics seem
to share an interest in opening up the data and findings, the rules of the
academic game that undermine a more integral form of participation
by civil society actors, especially those directly involved, still prevail. In
terms of co-construction of knowledge and public problems, migration
in the north seems to be an issue that requires the involvement of the
state at the highest level and of prestigious academic institutions since
the results not only contain information for local actors but also data
for political exchange and coordination with the United States. The
country’s asymmetry could be seen as a factor of pressure for COLEF
and associates toward mainstream, “big” social science projects such
as this annual survey.
On the southern border, the situation is also complex. Institu-
tions such as El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Centro de Estudios Superi-
ores de México y Centroamérica (CESMECA), Centro de Investigación
y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, and Región Sureste
conduct research on the border area (whether directly or indirectly
linked to migration). Unlike Tijuana, in the south the migratory phe-
nomenon seems to be conceived as, among other things, impossible
to approach other than through direct and permanent contact with
civil society. As an interviewee put it, “civil organizations can give
you the data quickly because they work directly with people, and
there is a different way of data production, without intermediation”
(interview 9, passage 1).
Given the conflict-ridden presence of the state and federal gov-
ernments in the region, the Indigenous ethnic question, which compli-
cates the panorama, and the lack of comparable resources in relation
to institutions from other parts of the country, research into migration
(and other areas) at the southern border seems more responsive to
the specific needs, interests, and realities of local actors, particularly
through NGOs and social movements. Similar to the north, the bor-
der here is not merely a research problem, but a situatedness that
irredeemably puts scientists in contact with the subjects that experi-
ence and survive it. Unlike the north, the research is more intimately
connected with the social subjects and only indirectly with the state
and decision-makers. Migration in the south is co-constructed differ-
ently, including the asymmetry with Belize and Guatemala’s academic

communities. Perhaps as a consequence, an interest in new platforms

for making contact with social groups, such as researchers’ radio pro-
grams on local stations or documentaries, can be observed here.
While scholars near the borders have appropriated the migration
issue as a situation in which they are embedded, those in the centre
approach the issue more “scientifically.” Detached from the daily
concerns of the border, these scholars are less keen on Open Science
(i.e., Open Research Agenda or Open Data), and migration as a public
issue is co-produced in relation to mainstream academic literature and,
indirectly, to the federal government (e.g., consultancy and advisory).
Thus, the emergence of public problems is not only conflictive but
also dynamic because it is the outcome of a process of interacting
actors in different places.
Conclusions
Over the course of this chapter, we have examined the conditions
under which scientific knowledge (produced in a more or less open
way according to each particular case) is capable of being utilized to
satisfy social needs. Our approach takes the social use of knowledge
as its focus, not “subsequent” to its production but co-produced
with it. In this way, we are inserted into a concrete dynamic of elab-
oration in conjunction with closure/openness of scientific knowl-
edge. At the same time, this perspective enables us to glimpse the
given (and changing) forms or conditions of relationships in which
these dynamics acquire a certain entity. Thus, from an analysis of
the cases presented, some meaningful dimensions about openness
emerge which help us to make advances on our area of study. What
is valuable about these dimensions is that they show the concrete
framework in which human activity unfolds, accounting for vital
aspects which, up until now, have been scarcely and superficially
tackled in the mainstream of Open Science: the competencies, skills,
organizational forms, and social resources (economic, political, and
cognitive) deployed by the actors constituted in the knowledge
productive processes.
We confront different configurations of public problems/issues
as social and cognitive realms, which delimit that which is disputable,
expressible, and cognizable. This is a nodal aspect to the question
of the relationship between openness and the utilization of knowl-
edge, given that the definition of the problematic framework makes

certain knowledge possible, which far from being purely universal is

utilizable in the realm of certain relationships and by certain actors
within them. But these problems, far from being “natural,” are actively
constructed by the actors, mobilizing diverse types of knowledge.
The role of a certain type of actor, that of the “driver,” is strik-
ingly significant: an actor who in some way marks an initiation or
rupture, mobilizing scientific knowledge in a particular way in pur-
suit of a particular social use, and is a highly active and influential
element in shaping the public problem. Furthermore, the constitution
of the public problem can be characterized by varying degrees of
conflict. The degree of conflict participates in its configuration as
well as in the possibilities of intervention available to other actors,
who mobilize their own resources, organizational forms, competen-
cies, and skills, and give rise to the configuration of new types of
knowledge. This requires, however, the possession of specific compe-
tencies and resources by the affected actors, as well as certain forms
of production, mediation, intermediation, and stabilization of the
knowledge in question.
On the other hand, we regard the material dimension of knowl-
edge to be significant in relation to the possible forms of “use” and
“openness.” This dimension does not determine the practices of pro-
duction and use of knowledge, but it does facilitate certain “condi-
tions of possibility” for the establishment of more or less collaborative
relations of production, access to the products of science, and their
eventual (re)use. The material dimension is definitively linked to the
other dimensions of co-production, and they are therefore able to
mutually modify themselves (and each other) according to different
contexts. In the case of Chagas disease, molecular biologists have
typically imposed their own perspective on the public problem and
function as “drivers” of the process. The way in which knowledge
is made utilizable is in the form of scientific publications, or rather
as information outputs codified and organized into databases (DNA
sequences). This form entails certain qualifications that would allow
one to mobilize and use these resources. Therefore, to facilitate uses
of knowledge that would be commensurable with social needs and
demands, very specific processes of translation are required to convert
them into commercializable pharmacological products or new ther-
apeutic devices. These processes involve, in turn, another realm of
relations, actors, resources, competencies, and organizational forms,
as well as a different overall relation with the object of research.

The question is quite different for the technical reports in the

Jáchal-Veladero case. In that case, the translation does not operate
upon the material form of the knowledge but on its socio-cognitive
content and, likewise, on its problematic criteria of elaboration. This
conversion implicated particular forms of social relations, character-
ized by modalities of collaborative knowledge production, certain
modes of political organization—such as the constitution of AJNST
itself and the web of political alliances with diverse groups—and,
lastly, certain types of socio-cognitive skills such as reasoning about
diverse technical problems, defining analysis criteria, drafting reports,
mobilizing university laboratories, and selecting and enlisting national
and international scientific actors.
On the other hand, it can be observed that different disciplinary
regimes have a significant influence on the intersections between “use
of knowledge” and “Open Science.” In principle, the regimes anchored
to a single, strongly established discipline integrated into international
agendas seem to be guided more by the legitimization of knowledge
through the classic means of circulation (articles in high-impact jour-
nals) than by their relationships with an approach to public problems,
even when public discourse seems to be contradictory. This is the case
with molecular biology and applied genomics in the study of T. cruzi,
in which despite the formally “open” character of knowledge, a set
of specific competencies is required for access. These competencies
operate as serious “barriers to entry,” both for the “non-specialist”
scientists (or those in peripheral contexts) and, in the same sense,
for the industrialization of knowledge, which could be appropriately
used in the previously defined social problem. The participation of
“non-scientist” actors is, here, highly limited.
In contrast, the processes of co-production around the Jáchal
socio-technical dispute unfolded through the confluence of various
disciplinary fields with a technical character and a lesser degree of
specialization and international integration, which contributed to
producing a scenario characterized by lower levels of restriction.
Thus, conditions arose that enabled the AJNST, constituted by a non-
scientific public and its “non-specialist” scientist allies, to intervene
with remarkable depth and impact.
In the case of strategies for conserving threatened species,
although the “driver” was originally situated within the field of
environmental studies or ecological conversation. This field is, in
itself, less structured along disciplinary lines than molecular biology

and, in its own process of development, is more permeable than

molecular biology. On the other hand, the knowledge mobilized is
gathered from various prior objects constituted as research problems:
soils, environmental systems, climatic systems, studies of human ac-
tion, etc. The cognitive problems of this type of discipline, whose
empirical objects are distributed on a wide-ranging regional scale
(as is the case with conservation biology), mean a greater possibility
of openness toward the process of open collaboration, both in terms
of the use of technological infrastructures and the intensive use of
human collaborators.
The social sciences, in this disciplinary regime, present spe-
cial features. On the one hand, they make the boundaries between
knowledge producers and the data-providing subjects more nebu-
lous; on the other hand, the frontiers between the different disciplines
(anthropology, history, sociology) are less clearly demarcated, unlike,
for example, approaches in the “hard” sciences. The disciplinary in-
vestigations are inscribed into paradigms as diverse as the more “sci-
entific” research (more distanced from the subjects) that only permits
access to data once they have been crystallized as such to that of
“action research,” which is much closer to the notion of “science-social
actor” co-production and in which the use of knowledge is constitu-
tive of said epistemic activities.
We observed that in the case of Jáchal, the socio-technical dis-
pute is inscribed in a context of productive relations that give rise to
“exclusive knowledge,” since the “opencast” mine barely provides
work or resources for the local populations and is, furthermore, in-
compatible with the technological forms that are effectively utilizable
in the pursuit of meeting social needs. As we have seen, this type of
exclusive knowledge is opposed by a type of knowledge mobilized
by other “drivers” who question the public definition of the problem
as well as the closed character of the knowledge mobilized by the
company and the actors associated with it.
In the case of the participatory strategies in environmen-
tal conservation in which the configuration of actors starts from a
“driver” who distributes information-collecting tasks between diverse
actors, the participation of citizens as information gatherers entails a
degree of instrumentalization of the process of openness, while the
processing and analysis of the data are left to the experts.
In the research looking at social sciences in Mexico, the drivers,
evidently, are the social scientists. But here, unlike the other cases, the

frontiers become more diffuse since the knowledge is produced—as

in much research in the social sciences—by the researchers interact-
ing with the studied subjects (or communities). Therefore, even if
the social subjects are held to be “mere providers of information,”
they, necessarily, have their own representations about the problem
(i.e., of migration) and a de facto tension arises between their own
interpretations and those of the scientists. Varied degrees of integra-
tion are therefore possible in this context, and the uses of knowledge
obtained can be the object of disputes, with greater or lesser remote-
ness from the cognitive dimensions.
The concepts and cases discussed thus far could help us ar-
ticulate explicit recommendations for enabling more effective uses
of scientific knowledge on behalf of local stakeholders. Public prob-
lems are processes whereby unequally distributed resources become
mobilized. Therefore, the affected groups could take advantage of
spaces where their position is strengthened. These spaces become
even more crucial in the Latin American context, where the number
of well-established or institutionalized spaces that allow knowledge
to circulate openly are scarce. A diversity of stakeholders and modes
of approaching public problems and intervention should be required
to integrate these spaces.
Strengthening and institutionalizing public science forums could
be a way to foster the mobilization and production of knowledge
aimed toward addressing social needs and demands. The challenge
lies in ensuring legal state support while at the same time enabling
local stakeholders to retain their autonomy against potential mech-
anisms of co-optation induced by political, scientific, or economic
corporatism.
Public science forums could contribute to scientific openness in
the usual sense, but they also may allow alternative forms of knowl-
edge born by different stakeholders—usually deemed as inferior or
“non-scientific”—to take part in public debate and intervention. The
affected stakeholders and their own sets of knowledge could therefore
participate in both the formulation and the resolution of the problems
at stake. Public science forums can also affect public deliberation by
providing policy-making with different grounds. This is clearly cru-
cial in the process of intervening in public controversies and their
outcomes, but also in non-controversial issues where more reflexive
and representative criteria are needed to ensure that knowledge will

be effectively used, such as in the cases of Chagas disease research

and wildlife conservation.
These kinds of forums may also enable the application of the pre-
cautionary principle, which in recent times has been particularly difficult
in Latin America, especially in the face of environmental hazards. As we
have shown through the mining controversies in Jáchal, there are cases
where conflicts are settled through the interposition of technical reports.
Lay groups, in general, and potentially affected groups, in particular,
are usually sidelined from the elaboration of technical reports and their
consequent decision-making processes. Public science forums aim to
revert this power imbalance in both political and cognitive terms. In this
way, our proposal is partially amenable to the ideas of citizen science,
in the sense that it calls for a systematic fostering of institutional spaces
for both scientific openness and political participation. However, it also
goes beyond citizen science as it understands scientific knowledge and
public processes as co-producing each other, rather than just knowledge
outputs that “inform” political decision-making.
Notes
1. The disaggregation of this goal took the form of a series of research questions:
Where are the jaguars (and pumas) found in the Atlantic forests? What features
must the “landscape” possess for the species to subsist (D’Angelo 2009)? What
factors determine population density variation? How many jaguars are there in
the region (Paviolo 2010)?
References
Agüero, Fernàn, Bissan Al-Lazikani, Martin Aslett, M. Berriman, Frederick
S. Buckner, Robert K. Campbell, and Christophe L. M. J. Verlinde et
al. 2008. “Genomic-scale Prioritization of Drug Targets: the TDR Tar-
gets Database.” Nature Reviews: Drug Discovery 7 (11): 900–7. http://doi.
.org/10.1038/nrd2684.
Alatas, Syed F. 2003. “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of La-
bour in the Social Sciences.” Current Sociology 51 (6): 599–613.
Arocena, Rodrigo, and Judith Sutz. 2001. “Changing Knowledge Production
and Latin American Universities.” Research Policy (30) 8: 1221–34.
Behague, Dominique, Charlotte Tawiah, Mikey Rosato, Télésphore Some,
and Joanna Morrison. 2009. “Evidence-based Policy-making: The Im-
plications of Globally-applicable Research for Context-specific Prob-
lem-solving in Developing Countries.” Social Science and Medicine 69
(10): 1539–46. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.006.

Calvillo, Arturo. 2015. “Migración centro americana en México, invisible para

el gobierno.” HipanTVNexo Latino. www.hispantv.com/noticias/reporteros.
/75490/migrantes-centroamerica-violencia-sexual-mexico-eeuu.
Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH). 2016. Situación
de Derechos Humanos en México. www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs.
/Mexico2016-es.pdf.
Crawshaw Peter, G., Jr. 1995. “Comparative Ecology of Ocelot (Felis pardalis)
and Jaguar (Panthera onca) in a Protected Subtropical Forest in Brazil
and Argentina.” PhD Thesis. Gainesville: University of Florida.
De Angelo, Carlos, Agustín Paviolo, Daniela Rode, Laury Cullen et al. 2011.
“Participatory Networks for Large-scale Monitoring of Large Carni-
vores: Pumas and Jaguars of the Upper Parana Atlantic Forest.” Oryx
45: 534–45.
De Ángelo, Carlos. 2009. “El paisaje del Bosque Atlántico del Alto Paraná
y sus efectos sobre la distribución y estructura poblacional del jaguar
(Panthera onca) y el puma (Puma concolor).” PhD Dissertation. Buenos
Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Díaz, Elena, Yolanda Texera, and Hebe Vessuri. 1983. La ciencia periférica.
Caracas: Monte Ávila Editores.
Di Bitetti, Mario S. 2015. “Cómo estudiar poblaciones de mamíferos silvestres.”
Revista Ciencia Hoy 25 (146): 31–7.
Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. “The Dynamics of Innovation:
From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of University-
Industry-Government Relations.” Research Policy 29 (2): 109–123.
Fecher, Benedikt, and Sascha Friesike. 2014. “Open Science: One Term, Five
Schools of Thought.” In Opening Science, edited by Sönke Bartling and
Sascha Friesike, 213–24. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.
.org/10.1007/978‑3-319‑00026‑8.
Gusfield, Joseph R. 1981. The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-driving and
the Symbolic Order. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). 2001. Competitiveness: The Business
of Growth. Washington, DC: IADB.
Hotez, Peter J., Eric Dumonteil, Miguel Betancourt Cravioto, Maria Elena
Bottazzi, Roberto Tapia-Conyer, Sheba Meymandi, Unni Karunakara,
Isabela Ribeiro, Rachel M. Cohen, and Bernard Pecoul. 2013. “An Un-
folding Tragedy of Chagas Disease in North America.” PLoS Neglected
Tropical Diseases 7 (10). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002300.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. “The Idiom of Co-production.” In States of Knowledge:
The Co-production of Science and Social Order, edited by S. Jasanoff. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Kreimer, Pablo. 2003. “Conocimiento científicos y utilidad social.” Ciencia,
Docencia y Tecnología, AñoXIV, 26.

——— . 2014. “‘Citizen of the World’ or a Local Producer of Useful Knowledge?

That’s the Question.” In Academic Dependency and Professionalization in
the South, edited by Fernanda Beigel and Hanan Sabea.
——— . 2015. “Co-producing Social Problems and Scientific Knowledge: Chagas
Disease and the Dynamics of Research Fields in Latin America.” In
Sociology of Science Yearbook. Springer.
Kreimer, Pablo, and Thomas, H. 2005. “What is CANA-AKNA? Social Utility
of Scientific and Technological Knowledge: Challenges for Latin Amer-
ican Research Centers.” In Development Through Knowledge, edited by
Jean-Baptisete Myer and Michel Carton.
Kreimer, Pablo, and Juan Pablo Zabala. 2007. “Chagas Disease in Argentina:
Reciprocal Construction of Social and Scientific Problems.” Science Tech-
nology & Society 12 (1): 49–72. http://doi.org/10.1177/097172180601200104.
Kreimer, Pablo, and L. Levin. 2013. “Scientific Cooperation between the Euro-
pean Union and Latin American Countries: Framework Programmes 6
and 7.” In Research Collaborations between Europe and Latin America: Map-
ping and Understanding Partnership, edited by Gaillard and Arvanitis.
Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines.
Leys Stepan, Nancy. 2011. Eradication: Ridding the World of Diseases Forever?
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Losego, Philippe, and Rigas Arvanitis. 2008. “La ciencia en los países no he-
gemónicos,” Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances 2 (3): 351–9. http://
doi.org/10.3917/rac.005.0351.
Lundvall, Bengt-Âke. 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory
of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.
Magarinos, María P., Santiago J. Carmona, Gregory J. Crowther, Stuart A. Ralph,
David S. Roos, Dhanasekaran Shanmugam, Wesley C. Van Voorhis, and
Fernán Aguero. 2012. “TDR Targets: A Chemogenomics Resource for
Neglected Diseases.” Nucleic Acids Research 40 (D1): D1118–27. http://
doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr1053.
Masum, Hassan, and Rachelle Harris. 2011. Open Source for Neglected Dis-
eases: Magic Bullet or Mirage? Washington, DC: Results for Development
Institute.
OCDE. 1996. “La difusión de tecnología,” Redes: Revista de Estudios Sociales
de la Ciencia III (8).
Ojeda, Ricardo, V. Chillo, and Gabriela Diaz Isenrath. 2012. Libro Rojo de
Mamíferos Amenazados en Argentina. Mendoza: SAREM.
Paviolo, Augustín, Carlos Daniel De Angelo, Yamil E. Di Blanco, and Mario S.
Di Bitetti. 2008. “Jaguar Pantheraonca Population Decline in the Upper
Paraná Atlantic Forest of Argentina and Brazil.” Oryx 42 (4): 554–61.
Paviolo, Augustín. 2010. “Densidad del yaguareté (Panthera onca) en la selva
paranaense: su relación con la disponibilidad de presas, presión de

caza y coexistencia con el puma (Puma concolor).” Tesis de Doctorado.

Cordoba: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.
Porrás, Analía I., Zaida E. Yadon, Jaime Altcheh, Constança Britto, Gabriela C.
Chaves, Laurence Flevaud, et al. 2015. “Target Product Profile (TPP) for
Chagas Disease Point-of-Care Diagnosis and Assessment of Response to
Treatment.” PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 9 (6). http://doi.org/10.1371.
/journal.pntd.0003697.
Sábato, J., and N. Botana. 1969. “La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo
de América Latina,” in Herrera, Amilcar O. (ed.), América Latina: ciencia
y tecnología en el desarrollo de la sociedad, Santiago de Chile: Editorial
Universitaria.
Sosa-Estani, S. 2011. “Nuevo escenario de estudios clínicos y perspectivas
para los próximos años.” Plataforma de Investigación Clínica En Enfer-
medad de Chagas 11.
Sutz, Judith. 1994. Universidad y Sectores Productivos. Buenos Aires, Centro
Editor de América Latina.
Whitley, Richard. 2012. “La organización intelectual y social de las ciencias.”
Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
WHO. 2007. “New Online Database to Help Fight Infectious Diseases.” http://
www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr14/en/#.U1gFkMar3Vs.
.mendeley.
WHO. 2012. “Research Priorities for Chagas Disease, Human African Try-
panosomiasis, and Leishmaniasis.” Geneva, Switzerland Geneva: WHO.

Ferpozzi, Kreimer-Open Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ferpozzi, Kreimer-Open Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTEXTUALIZING OPENNESS

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 1 20/09/2019 16:07:07

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Legal Deposit: Third Quarter 2019

Printed and bound in Canada

Copy editing NordCompo

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 2 20/09/2019 16:07:07

Leslie Chan, Angela Okune, Rebecca Hillyer,

University of Ottawa Press

International Development Research Centre

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 3 20/09/2019 16:07:08

Section 1: Defining Open Science in Development

Section 2: Governing Open Science

Section 3: Negotiating Open Science

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 5 20/09/2019 16:07:08

Section 4: Open Science for Social Transformation

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 6 20/09/2019 16:07:08

Hugo Ferpozzi, Juan Layna, Emiliano Martín Valdez,.

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 201 20/09/2019 16:07:21

constructing a more comprehensive and integral approach to openness.

1. national and international networks dedicated to Chagas dis-

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 202 20/09/2019 16:07:21

forward. Thus, Sábato and Botana (1969) proposed to analyze the

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 203 20/09/2019 16:07:21

point out, “Non-hegemonic countries are dominated in the international

(1) the infrastructure school, concerned with the technological

Each of these approaches places emphasis on different relational

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 204 20/09/2019 16:07:21

Our sociological approach is concerned with the question about

Knowledge and its material embodiments are at once products of

We add to this idea of co-production a central concern that not only is

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 205 20/09/2019 16:07:21

be accompanied by legal, political, or interactional knowledge about

Empirical Case 1: Chagas Disease Research

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 206 20/09/2019 16:07:21

Foundation are other international institutions interested in research

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 207 20/09/2019 16:07:21

knowledge makes it difficult for those affected to participate in the

Empirical Case 2: Socio-technical Dispute Around

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 208 20/09/2019 16:07:21

A significant feature of this conflict is the production of technical

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 209 20/09/2019 16:07:21

court facilitated the intervention of Robert Moran, an internationally

Empirical Case 3: Collaborative Jaguar Monitoring Networks

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 210 20/09/2019 16:07:21

to establish the source of the signal. This technique is known as radio

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 211 20/09/2019 16:07:21

that are limited to a local or regional scale is more feasible in these

Empirical Case 4: Development of Social Science Knowledge

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 212 20/09/2019 16:07:21

students working on it have close contacts with these organizations

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 213 20/09/2019 16:07:21

communities. Perhaps as a consequence, an interest in new platforms

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 214 20/09/2019 16:07:22

certain knowledge possible, which far from being purely universal is

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 215 20/09/2019 16:07:22

The question is quite different for the technical reports in the

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 216 20/09/2019 16:07:22

and, in its own process of development, is more permeable than

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 217 20/09/2019 16:07:22

frontiers become more diffuse since the knowledge is produced—as

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 218 20/09/2019 16:07:22

be effectively used, such as in the cases of Chagas disease research

312523YGH_CONTEXTUAL_cs6_pc.indd 219 20/09/2019 16:07:22

1. national and international networks dedicated to Chagas dis-

Calvillo, Arturo. 2015. “Migración centro americana en México, invisible para